Breaking News from Genesis 1:9

[james bond]

Oldest Known Rock on Earth Discovered

Bedrock in Canada is 4.28 billion years old

www.nsf.gov

Do the simple experiment. Take some chunks and freeze it.

I did that.

Do this experiment. Support an argument without your predefined “statement of faith”.

What happened? The scientific method tells us the rocks crack, break, and eventually crumble.

It means that your purported estimate of rocks of 4.28 billion years old are wrong. Maybe not in the methodology used in measurement, but in the assumptions. It means all of your measurements of billions of years are wrong. The rocks. The fossils. The sedimentary layers. The time chronology of evolution. It means Satan has pulled the wool over your eyes. It means Genesis 1:9 is right and science backs up the Bible. It means you have been wrong for how old are you now? Well, let's just say a good amount of time .

 

[james bond]

Untrue. If you understood the science you know that there will always be some C-14 left. That is why they are called half-lives, take 1/2 away and that still leaves 1/2. Repeat forever and there will always be some tiny amount

Let's not quibble about trace amounts of C-14. What RATES has found is that the rocks, coals, diamonds, fossils, and others objects of millions and billions of years old have much C-14 remaining as that of a young Earth. Thus, they were able to measure and get young dating. Anyway, your monuments are on my side of the evidence now and what other evidence do you have?

Unchanged in 3,500 years. Why do you assume they won't last another 3,500? or 350,000? or 350,000,000?

No, that's why I asked you if you've seen it in person. They are guarded against the elements as much as possible but still have weathered and decayed.

OTOH, what has happened to Judas' potter's field that which Jesus called Gehenna. Translates to hell. Look up the history of the valley's name. It's a scenic tourist destination. Don't you think Satan wants to make it as inviting as possible for you? It's history now, but the Christians know better.

The science tells us rocks and fossils decay due to weathering, chemical, and mechanical processes. Our planet cannot possibly last millions or billions of years with the catastrophism of earthquakes, tidal waves, plate tectonics, flooding, volcanoes, the asteroid and metoeor hits, and the like. Now, we have supervolcanoes and tsunamis.

 

[james bond]

I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?

It's in Genesis 1:9. The topic of the OP. I guess you missed that key point. It's why you don't discuss things like other believers do. We've had newer member Newtonian recently.

Again, I believe it is an allegorical account. I don't read it literally like you. But I am trying to understand where you think the water came from that flooded the entire surface of the planet. As I have already explained I don't think the account meant the entire surface of the planet was covered in water but I do believe catastrophic flooding did happen around the globe and that the cause was an asteroid strike in the northern polar region which vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and altered the climate of the earth. Not sure why my confirming the account in the Bible would be so upsetting to you.

Yes, I get what you said, but where is your source for these explanations of 1500 gigatons? Is it tied to the waterworld? Where are those links that state 1500 gigatons of ice?

Ken is a good guy. I doubt he would take offense at anyone who had a different understanding of biblical accounts than he did like you do.

He may be a good guy, but you don't support nor listen to anything he says. He has a museum and tourist attraction now. Don't you think he got some help from God to finally be able to put it together with use of atheist scientist Bill Nye?

To the contrary, what upsets you about a 6,000 years old Earth? Most think the old Earth creationists are wrong and don't have leg to stand on, but they have their sources. You don't.

Nobody can argue against someone who take bits and pieces of science and cobbles their own wacky theories. They won't be able to present anything of interest. We have a place for that as pseudoscience.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The THEORY goes that earths crust is displaced during a pole shift, which explains how coral reefs, rain forests, and mastodons have been found perfectly preserved at latitudes where they couldn’t have existed.

Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.

We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.

 

[gipper]

The THEORY goes that earths crust is displaced during a pole shift, which explains how coral reefs, rain forests, and mastodons have been found perfectly preserved at latitudes where they couldn’t have existed.

Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.

We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.

Oh I’m glad you’re back. I really wanted your thoughts on this next THEORY. I’m certain it’s going to blow your little mind.

It’s about the sun. It micro novas on the clock cycle (look it up). When it does this every roughly 13,000 years, it causes a geomagnetic pole reversal on earth, resulting in a biblical cataclysm.

Any thoughts?
Solar Micro-Nova in 2046?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.

Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.

Your bible is bullshit. See also the Koran and Torah. The 3 male dominator god religions vomited up in the middle east are nothing any more important than any other cultural creation mythos.

 

[Hollie]

Oldest Known Rock on Earth Discovered

Bedrock in Canada is 4.28 billion years old

www.nsf.gov

Do the simple experiment. Take some chunks and freeze it.

I did that.

Do this experiment. Support an argument without your predefined “statement of faith”.

What happened? The scientific method tells us the rocks crack, break, and eventually crumble.

It means that your purported estimate of rocks of 4.28 billion years old are wrong. Maybe not in the methodology used in measurement, but in the assumptions. It means all of your measurements of billions of years are wrong. The rocks. The fossils. The sedimentary layers. The time chronology of evolution. It means Satan has pulled the wool over your eyes. It means Genesis 1:9 is right and science backs up the Bible. It means you have been wrong for how old are you now? Well, let's just say a good amount of time .

You’re not understanding science. The process of weathering or plate tectonics will cause rock to break and crumble.

Invoking magical gods as the cause for natural processes simply adds an unnecessary layer of fear and superstition to processes well understood by science.

Similarly, adding Satans, boogeymen and irrational fears to your argument does nothing to address the peer reviewed data that documents ancient rock structures on an ancient planet.

Cutting and pasting bible verses in the hope that will add credibility to bible verses is a viciously circular argument.

 

[Wuwei]

What happened? The scientific method tells us the rocks crack, break, and eventually crumble.

It means that your purported estimate of rocks of 4.28 billion years old are wrong. Maybe not in the methodology used in measurement, but in the assumptions. It means all of your measurements of billions of years are wrong.

Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.

What RATES has found is that the rocks, coals, diamonds, fossils, and others objects of millions and billions of years old have much C-14 remaining as that of a young Earth.

What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.
.

 

[gipper]

The THEORY goes that earths crust is displaced during a pole shift, which explains how coral reefs, rain forests, and mastodons have been found perfectly preserved at latitudes where they couldn’t have existed.

Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.

We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.

LOL. That’s funny.

Mastodons don’t end up in Siberia flash frozen with completely intact food in their mouths, from the extremely slow movements of continental drift. I thought you knew that. Damn!

 

[Hollie]

I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?

It's in Genesis 1:9. The topic of the OP. I guess you missed that key point. It's why you don't discuss things like other believers do. We've had newer member Newtonian recently.

Again, I believe it is an allegorical account. I don't read it literally like you. But I am trying to understand where you think the water came from that flooded the entire surface of the planet. As I have already explained I don't think the account meant the entire surface of the planet was covered in water but I do believe catastrophic flooding did happen around the globe and that the cause was an asteroid strike in the northern polar region which vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and altered the climate of the earth. Not sure why my confirming the account in the Bible would be so upsetting to you.

Yes, I get what you said, but where is your source for these explanations of 1500 gigatons? Is it tied to the waterworld? Where are those links that state 1500 gigatons of ice?

Ken is a good guy. I doubt he would take offense at anyone who had a different understanding of biblical accounts than he did like you do.

He may be a good guy, but you don't support nor listen to anything he says. He has a museum and tourist attraction now. Don't you think he got some help from God to finally be able to put it together with use of atheist scientist Bill Nye?

To the contrary, what upsets you about a 6,000 years old Earth? Most think the old Earth creationists are wrong and don't have leg to stand on, but they have their sources. You don't.

Nobody can argue against someone who take bits and pieces of science and cobbles their own wacky theories. They won't be able to present anything of interest. We have a place for that as pseudoscience.

“It's in Genesis 1:9. The topic of the OP. I guess you missed that key point. It's why you don't discuss things like other believers do. We've had newer member Newtonian recently.”

Interestingly, three different versions of Christianity and three differing (and hostile), opinions, all claiming with 100% certainty (and 0% facts), to be the deliverers of “true” Christianity.

Would guns and knives allow you folks to settle your differences?

 

[james bond]

Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.

That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.

That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.

 

[Hollie]

Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.

That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.

That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.

Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.

 

[Newtonian]

I gave references. Where are your references? I will be glad to constructively critique them if you post them.

There is no gap in the history. The apostle John was taught by Jesus, and Polycarp was a student of the apostle John and a Quartodeciman. The oldest papyrus manuscript fragment for the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) is dated to early in the second century - the copy was made about 50 years after the book of John was written.

per your request:
Did Polycarp Meet John the Apostle?
BY RICHARD CARRIER ON OCTOBER 31, 2019

The claim comes up a lot that Polycarp met John—the original Apostle, Disciple of Jesus, Brother to James, the “Pillar” of Galatians 2, He of The Twelve. Enough to warrant a response you can bookmark. The short answer to the question, “Did he?” is no. It’s not likely at any rate. Later legends claimed this. But so far as we can tell, Polycarp himself conspicuously never did.

My main point was that there is no gap in history. Also that Polycarp was a quartodeciman, Since the Bible clearly teaches Jesus observed the last supper on passover night, it is clear Polycarp followed apostolic teachings. Passover was on Nisan 14. You ignore this.

Also you ignored the manuscript evidence I posted. The oldest ms. of the book of John dates about 150 CE which is about 50 years after John wrote his gospel account, his 3 letters and the book of Revelation.

But I will research more in depth the claim that Polycarp was taught by the apostle John - though Carrier's claim John did not live when Polycarp was taught is false since John wrote c. 96 CE and Polycarp was born c. 70 CE which makes Polycarp about 26 years old when John wrote those Bible books.

Your own link says:

"Polycarp was a Christian Bishop in what is now Turkey during the mid-2nd century—born around 69 and died around 155 A.D. We have one letter and some quotations from him in other authors, and a ridiculous hagiography. Legend was he studied under John the Disciple and met others who had “seen Jesus.” But there’s no evidence that’s true; and it’s highly unlikely."

So there was no gap in history.

As for the claims he makes, note that he is biased against the historicity of Jesus as well - but I will research more in depth the claim that Polycarp was a student of the apostle John.

 

[Newtonian]

Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.

That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.

That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.

Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.

I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings. Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken. You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.

You also fail to document your assertions. From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.

 

[Wuwei]

That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

I specifically mentioned diamonds and zirconium because they don't crumble and the long-lived isotopes trapped inside those minerals are protected from contamination. They found no C-14 on the outside of the diamonds that were within the instrument error.

That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.

A lie? RATE scientists are the ones who think they established that diamonds presumably are 80 to 1000 thousand years old. You are the one who gave me the references.
.

 

[Newtonian]

The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.

Genesis 1:2 is likely referring to millions if not billions of years ago when earth was initially covered with primordial waters (still in darkness then). The Noachian flood was much more recent. You are ignoring how earth accreted its water - don't feel bad - most anti-flood writers ignore this- they simply argue against the last condensation catastrophe but fail to give a tenable alternative.

The vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust are mostly below the deposits caused by the flood - in fact the rate that the geologic carbon cycle proceeds is evidence that earth has had oceans for a very long time - perhaps over 1 billion years!

Remember that the carbonate deposits by the geologic carbon cycle required much water, a vast CO2 atmosphere causing carbonate (CO3) and bi-carbonate (HCO3) ions in earth's primordial waters, and also Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), and Calcium (Ca) ions which combined with carbonates by chemical reaction and precipitated out as carbonate deposits. By far the majority of this very long time period was before the Noachian flood which occurred 2370 BCE.

How do you explain aqueous deposits on top of Mt. Everest?

 

[Wuwei]

Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.

RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE

I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements.
.

 

[Hollie]

Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.

That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.

That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.

Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.

I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings. Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken. You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.

You also fail to document your assertions. From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.

It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly require that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma.

The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning.


The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/

There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.

 

[Newtonian]

These accounts were told as stories or fables to make them easier to remember and pass down. That’s how they did it 10,000 years ago. You would think that people today would be intelligent enough to understand this concept but apparently not.

I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet. Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study. The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.

A few links on the many flood accounts:

Noah’s Faith Condemns the World — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Anthropologists have collected as many as 270 flood legends from nearly all tribes and nations. “The flood story is found throughout the world,” says scholar Claus Westermann. “Like the creation narrative, it is part of our basic cultural heritage. It is truly astonishing: everywhere on earth we find stories of a great primeval flood.” The explanation? Says expositor Enrico Galbiati: “The insistent presence of a flood tradition in different and widely separated peoples is a sign of the historical reality of the fact that lies at the base of such traditions.”

From our Bible dictionary:

Deluge — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319) states: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1982."

A Whole World Destroyed! — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"[Chart on page 4]


(For fully formatted text, see publication)


Flood Legends Worldwide


Country Correspondencies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Greece 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Rome 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Lithuania 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Assyria 9 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Tanzania 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

Lithuania 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Assyria 9 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Tanzania 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


India - Hindu 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


New Zealand - Maori 5 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Micronesia 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Washington U.S.A. - Yakima 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Mississippi U.S.A. - Choctaw 7 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Mexico - Michoacan 5 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


South America - Quechua 4 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Bolivia - Chiriguano 5 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆


Guyana - Arawak 6 ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆

1: God angered by wickedness


2: Destruction by a flood


3: Ordered by God


4: Divine warning given


5: Few of mankind survive


6: Saved in a vessel


7: Animals saved


8: Bird or other creature sent out


9: Finally comes to rest on a mountain


10: Sacrifice offered"

 

[Newtonian]

F

Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.

That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.

That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.

Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.

I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings. Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken. You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.

You also fail to document your assertions. From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.

It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly require that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma.

The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning.


The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/

There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.

False. My first example involved carbonates in earth's crust and I did not cite any links to our literature on that point. I did cite Britannica though. You have no excuse for ignoring the scientific evidence I posted.

Also, to belong to the Creation Research Society one must believe in the trinity - Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the trinity -neither did Isaac Newton.

Most creationists believe the creative days in Genesis chapter 1 were 24 hours each - we do not believe this - the rate of the geologic carbon cycle removing CO2 from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters could not have occurred in a week - or even in 10,000 years.

But you do have to go to our website to find out what we actually believe - there are many lies and deceptions about our beliefs on the internet - but we know what we believe.